Talk:Israel/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

QRpedia

QRpedia is a WikimediaUK project which uses QR codes to deliver Wikipedia articles to users, in their preferred language. We need versions of the article about it, in Hebrew and Arabic. Can anyone oblige, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 March 2012

Extended content
israel terrorist Israel seized Palestinian state Israel savage israel what kind of creature that? --120.166.18.211 (talk) 08:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)--120.166.18.211 (talk) 08:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

120.166.18.211 (talk) 08:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be an inflammatory statement rather than a request to make any edit. I have collapsed per Behavior that is unacceptable. --Fæ (talk) 08:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Israel article

Hello, The first line of the "Israel" article should be edited. Israel is a "Nation", not a "state". It should read the "Nation of Israel". Thank you, 12.192.177.117 (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

This article is about the modern State of Israel. There are several articles about the nation of Israel, including Israelites and Jews. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Could this picture be added?

To the tourism section?, it's an img of Ein Bokek, currently the only hotel resort in the Israeli coastline of the Dead Sea, as for 2012, the resort becomes more invested.[1] thanks. 79.183.0.47 (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

What is the problem with many images?

thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.218.145.251 (talk) 06:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Tourism section is too small for an image. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 09:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

COPYVIO material

In a recent edit, User:AnkhMorpork added:

Recently, Israel reportedly concluded a $1.6 billion arms deal with Baku.

Unfortunately, that is a close paraphrase of the source:

Israel – according to foreign reports – recently inked a $1.6 billion arms deal with Baku.

Per the instructions at the bottom of the edit box, "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted." Also, per WP:3RR, removing blatant WP:COPYVIO is not a 3RR violation (1RR in this instance). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I tried to reword it, but clearly you do not think it was sufficiently rephrased. It is not easy with short sentences and basic fact, and I would welcome your suggestions.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 21:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

How about:

In the spring of 2012, the two countries reportedly concluded an arms deal worth $1.6 billion.

Changing the sentence structure—and not using Baku as shorthand for Azerbaijan, as the source does—help eliminate the problem. Also, the paragraph is already about Israel and Azerbaijan, so there's no need to name the countries again. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

That is certainly satisfactory. May I insert this?
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 21:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Etymology

Since this article is protected, I can't edit it, since I don't have an account. However, the second paragraph of etymology needs to be modified a bit. The changes that need to be made are underlined.

The name Israel has historically been used, in common and religious usage, to refer to the biblical Kingdom of Israel or the entire Jewish nation.[29] According to the book of Genesis, the name "Israel" was given to the patriarch Jacob (Standard Yisraʾel, Isrāʾīl; Septuagint Greek: Ἰσραήλ; "struggle with God"[30]) after he successfully wrestled with the angel of the Lord.[31] Jacob's twelve sons became the ancestors of the Israelites, also known as the Twelve Tribes of Israel or Children of Israel. Jacob and his sons had lived in Canaan, but were forced by famine to go into Egypt for four generations until Moses, a great-great grandson of Jacob,[32] led the Israelites back into Canaan in the "Exodus". The earliest archaeological artifact to mention the word "Israel" is the Merneptah Stele of ancient Egypt (dated to the late 13th century BCE).[33]

96.242.163.228 (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Can't see any reason for this. What's your rationale? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

TTo be more specific. The Book of Genesis isn't exclusive to the Hebrew Bible. The Book of Genesis is in other Abrahamic religions. --96.242.163.228 (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hm. But to call it Book of Genesis is Christian POV. You could go for b'rishit, but I doubt a lot of people would understand that... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Asking for your opinions

I speak Hebrew, and know very well the Israeli Media controllers. i could add some words about the major newspapers there, both online and physical. do you think it's necessary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.147.147 (talk) 12:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you add Faisal–Weizmann Agreement

Hi,

could you please add Faisal–Weizmann Agreement to the history part (it was the first Israeli-Arab agrements that talked about jewish entety) 109XXX (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Tourism

The southernmost City of Eilat is most important for Israel's Intern, and reducibly, extern tourism. lye on Israel's shore of the Red sea and a neighbor to the Jordanian city of Aqaba, it hosts a respectable number of luxury hotels and some resorts, Eilat is an important dying area, rich in night life, and a juxtaposed marine & promenade, in which, a prolonged line of restaurants, and a grand Stall Bazaar which takes place every Monday and Thursday[281], and respectively aimed for tourists. Eilat is also a stop to comers from the Sinai border of Egypt to Israel. The city has it's own airport.

What? --62.163.152.44 (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The city of Tel Aviv, (Tel aviv-Jaffa), titled by Israelis as the "sanctuary of secularity"[282][283] by some, and also regarded as the "night life capital" of Israel. in this city of passion and promise, many hotels, most of whom are sea-viewing. central TA is loaded with night attractions: Pubs, Clubs, Dance-bars, Meeting-Bars, etc, and Restaurants working 24/7 or until the morning. it's also an important place for the LGBT community, and was nicknamed: "The Gay capital of the Middle East". Jaffa, on the other end, contains an old city, and is historically archeologically superior to Tel-Aviv. Jaffa, like Acre, lively resemble the passed periods of Ottoman, and (in lesser extent), Crusader rule.

A city of passion and promise! When do we leave? --62.163.152.44 (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It's being fixed. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Not a great edit, IMHO. Think some of the copy should have stayed in, just had the lunacy edited out... --62.163.152.44 (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Non neutral sentence

It says in the lead: "Portions of these territories, including east Jerusalem, have been annexed by Israel, but the border with the neighboring West Bank has not yet been permanently defined."

This implies that East Jerusalem is Israel and is so permanently. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you are splitting hairs. At least as it reads to me it states simple facts that Israel has annexed portions of the west bank (which includes East Jerusalem) but nothing has been set in stone because of world wide opposition. The sentence specifically states that nothing has been "permanently defined", so I am not sure how you think it implies that East Jerusalem is permanently part of Israel?

While the pre-1967 borders are commonly mentioned by various interest groups, I think a fair number of organizations and governments agree that the status of the borders of the west bank and even all of Jerusalem have yet to be determined. Like the CIA world fact book says: "The current status of the West Bank is subject to the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement - permanent status to be determined through further negotiation". This is just my thought on the issue.

Thanks,

Theo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theotokan (talk • contribs) 23:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You are reading it incorrectly, the sentence implies that Israeli annexed territories are part of Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

This phrase is poor and should be removed or changed. The phrase implies that east jerusalem is permatently defined as part of Israel, which is a breach of neutral point of view. I did not see anything claiming that nothing has been "premantly defined" as you claim. meitme (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC).

Acceptance and rejection of 1947 Plan of Partition

In the talk article of the article on the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, I got into discussion on the extent to which the Jews accepted rhe Plan. On balance the paragraph Jewish reaction now seem satisfactory.

In the current article it is stated quite baldly that the Jews accpted the Plan. That is clearly too simplistic.

My second problem is that the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not in any event an appropriate reference. Has anyone any suggestions on what to do?Trahelliven (talk) 05:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, remove the information as unsourced political statement by a contender in the conflict.Biraqleet (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It's sourced and correct. The Jewish Agency, which was the recognized representative of the Jewish community, accepted the plan. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy

Why not simply say that that the Jewish People's Council accepted the plan until 14 May 1948, when the wording of the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel did not limit its boundaries to those set out in Resolution 181(II) for the proposed Jewish State. Trahelliven (talk) 05:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn`t the partition plan in itself be given at least one sentence here? It is a major element of Israel`s history, and the reader receives no information on what the plan was. I suggest at least informing the amount of land and population composition of each new state proposed by the UN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco.natalino (talk • contribs) 18:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy

Your way of putting it seems perfect. The Jewish Agency, which was the recognized representative of the Jewish community, accepted the plan. Trahelliven (talk) 05:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Holocaust survivors

"At the same time, thousands of Jewish Holocaust survivors and refugees from Europe sought a new life in Palestine," I am sure it were actually millions. --41.151.64.150 (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

As of 2005, there were 400,000 Holocaust survivors living in Israel (hundreds of thousands is a more accurate term, 250,000 of them settled in Israel between 1945 and 1948).

Also there were 3 million Jews in Europe at the end of World War II. Most of them were not Holocaust survivors, but Eastern European Jews living under Soviet control, unlike Jews who lived in Nazi-occupied Europe (the majority, 6 million, perished in the Holocaust). For example, my own grandmother was born in Rovno, but she moved with her family to the USSR during the 1941 German invasion, so they were not considered Holocaust survivors, although she lived for a short time in a refugee camp in Pocking.

I think these are the correct numbers.--Jabotito48 (talk) 01:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Your edit "hundreds of thousands" was correct. Somewhere there are actual estimates, but I didn't find any just now. Only some fraction were in DP camps, so your reasoning is not conclusive. However the sentence is written as a sort of emotional plea and should be replaced by something more encyclopedic. It is not true that they all wanted to go to Palestine. The fact is that better destinations like the USA were almost completely closed to them and Palestine seemed like the only option. The sentence also seems to imply that all these refugees actually tried to reach Palestine, but only thousands did that. There were also thousands of legal immigrants to Palestine from Europe. All the details would be too much for this article; I'm mostly concerned with getting the wording to not sound like a slogan. Zero^talk

From Tom Segev's book The Seventh Million, between the end of World War II and Israel's independence, 140 ships carrying 70,000 people attempted to reach Palestine, of which the majority were stopped by the British. The representatives of the Yishuv (including Ben-Gurion) certainly believed that the survivors wanted to go to Palestine. Ben-Gurion estimated that 60-70% wanted this (Segev, 119-120). But Segev also writes: "It is difficult to know how many of those streaming westward intended from the start to reach Palestine" (124) I agree with Zero that people didn't necessarily come out of the camps as fervent Zionists. They wanted to get out of Europe and the Zionists not only wanted them and were willing to support them but were also the only ones who were actually facilitating them leaving the DP camps.

Here's my proposed rewrite: "At the same time, hundreds of thousands of Jewish Holocaust survivors and refugees sought a new life far from their destroyed communities in Europe. The Yishuv attempted to bring these refugees to Palestine but many were turned away or rounded up and placed in detention camps by the British."GabrielF (talk) 05:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

These wordings sound good to me except the hundreds of thousands that overestimate the number.

According to the Holocaust Museum, there were around 250,000 DP after WWII. 80,000 reached the USA; 136,000 went to Israel and 20,000 to other countries. [2].

I suggest to write : "At the same time, an important part of Jewish Holocaust survivors and refugees sought a new life far from their destroyed communities in Europe. The Yishuv attempted to bring these refugees to Palestine but many were turned away or rounded up and placed in detention camps by the British."

81.247.71.163 (talk) 07:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

My mistake: 250,000 Jews were DP (136,000 went to Israel). However, after Israel was established, other hundreds of thousands reached the country. As I said before, in 2005 there were 400,000 Holocaust survivors living in Israel.--Jabotito48 (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

According to Grodzinsky, In the Shadow of the Holocaust, ca. p118, the number of Jewish DPs in Europe might have peaked at 220-260K at the end of 1946 (about 20% of the total of all DPs), but he says no official figures are available for the Soviet zone. Also I think the 136-140K figure is for all European DPs going to Israel before and after May 1948. I agree with either wording except that I don't think "rounded up" adds anything. Zero^talk 11:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

In 2005 in Israel, there were indeed about 400,000 people older than 60 (see here). That means that they were born before 1945 and that the "survived the holocaust [period]" but most of them were Sabras, came from Arab lands or from the Russian immigration. Only a few part of these survived the concentration camps. Take care of propaganda Jabotito : you live in a country where citizens have been manipulated for more than 65 years. 81.247.71.163 (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I didn't say anything about "people older than 60". I said 400,000 Holocaust survivors. The definition used by Israel for survivors is: European Jews living in territories under Nazi occupation between 1933 and 1945 (not just people in concentration camps). You should remember the majority of these people died BEFORE 2005, therefore weren't included in your table.

By the way, I'm from Argentina and I don't swallow Marxist/Pallywood's propaganda anymore, my opinion is based on facts. You have no reason to worry.--Jabotito48 (talk) 00:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It could hardly have 400,000 holocaust survivors in Israel in 2005 given there were around 400,000 people above 60 living in Israel in 2005 but it doens't matter much.

Oh... If you are not a sabra it means that you are more deeply glued in the "narrative" because you community has to "justify" a way or the other its "right to participate and exist" in Israel's life. That was studied by Anita Shapira. That is a common, normal and sane human reaction. There were plenty of "you" in the past here and there will be plenty "you" in future. If you want to develop an encyclopaedia, you have to read and study many scholar books dealing with the topics that you want to edit. For Israelis and Jews (whatever their politics views) who wants to edit Israel-related articles, it is also required that they study the psycho-sociology of their nation. Thousands of hours of work. 91.180.72.97 (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is open for anyone to edit. We don't create specific requirements for editors based on nationality or religion. GabrielF (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

How come if someone said something similar about Arabs or Muslims or even Europeans, they would be instantly banned, but it is okay on Wikipedia to say such things about Jews?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.150.252 (talk • contribs)

United Nations Special Committee On Palestine: Resolution of 29 November 1947

Telaviv1

Your revert goes as follows:

On 29 November 1947, the General Assembly adopted the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, which recommended creation of Jewish and Arab states in Palestine with Jerusalem to be administered by the UN.

My objections to your oversimplifcation are as follows:-

1 The Report of UNSCOP has two plans, the proposed plan of the majority in Chapter VI and the proposed minority plan in Chapter VII. The plan in Resolution 181(II) was strictly speaking neither plan. It was the plan of the majority with some modifications. Your version implies there was only one plan in the Report and that it was adopted without modification.

2 The Report did not recommend either plan, It merely contained alternaiive plans, one plan proposed by the majority and one proposed by the minority.

3 The UNGA adopted a resolution, not a plan of partition. The plan was to be adopted and implemented by others.

4 The plan in the Resolution contained three complely separate entities, an Arab state, a Jewish state and the City of Jerusalem. Your version does not make that clear. Incidentally in both the Report and the Resolution the reference to the Arab state always precedes the reference to the Jewish state. Is there any reason why you reversed them?

I am reinstating my version of 29 May. Trahelliven (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Common name

Is there any objection to beginning this article, "Israel, officially the State of Israel,..."? This is what similar articles do, and WP:PLACE supports it. As this is a sensitive article, I figured it was better to err on the side of caution and ask here before changing it. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

As no one has objected, I went ahead and changed it. Please let me know if anything is amiss. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Since the article on Palestine found it necessary to indicate that it is “also known as Land of Israel“ in both English and in Hebrew among the names of Palestine, wouldn’t it be fair to add “also known as Occupied Palestine ‘filistin al-muhtallah’” to the glorious names of the state at the beginning of the article? Hundreds of millions of people know it only with that name.173.74.22.141 (talk) 06:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, and we can add "Zionist entity" too. (eye-roll)

Palestine is about a geographic region that is sometimes called the Land of Israel. Palestinian territories, Palestinian National Authority, or State of Palestine might be analogous to this article, and none of them use that phrase. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Still, the state of Israel as such is not recognized by many states and by hundreds of millions of people. To them, the state of Israel is "Occupied Palestine," and when they refer to the Israeli governement they say "The Occupation Regime in Palestine," when they refer to the Israeli establishment they say the "Zionist Entitiy," (no eye-roll) and so on. That is something somehow unique to Israel because of its nature as colony of foreigners in a historical region and it should be stated clearly to comply with the wikipolicy of including all valid POVs. And before you give me some rhetorical argument, I give you a few pointers. First, Israelis and Zionists themselves hold this view to be true when they complain that Israel's own existence is not recognized by so many countries and so many people. Second, contrary to the propagated pro-Israeli view which makes the conlict between the Arabs and Israel about "disputed territories" in Gaza and the West Bank, the real conflict (apart from the Occupied Territories which in that view is only a matter of necessary pragmatism) is the DISPUTED STATE itself. It is simply either a State of Israel, or a State of Palestine. Those who recognize the first as a de facto state look for the State of Palestine somewhere else on portions of historical Palestine. Those who do not accept colonization and occupation as valid and permanent consider it "Occupied Palestine."173.74.22.141 (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

People can call Pluto "cheese" and we'd still call it Pluto on Wikipedia. As has been pointed out, State of Palestine does not call itself "Israel" in that article despite it having the same (if not worse) limited recognition problem. Palestine does, but that is describing a geographic area, not a national entity. Land of Israel similarly describes a geographic area, and that article does state that it is additionally called "Palestine." That works for a geographic area, but not for the article on a national entity. Those that do not call the State of Israel "Israel" have a lot more of an issue than just the name. They probably also don't recognize the currency, or the language, or the flag, or the... are you suggesting we change all of these to have the alternative for those that don't use what this article is about? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not know about Pluto but I know that even though the article is about Israel, it should be stated that some countries and some people do not recognize that it exists as a state but as an occupation. A country can exist or not exist but its status as such can still be disputed. For example, Taiwan exits as an independent state but it should be made clear in that page that Taiwan as a state is diputed by China which considers it just a renegade province. Tibet, which is part of China and not independent, should be clarified as being considered occupied by many and viewed as should be independent. Northern Cyprus is independent as a matter of fact and recognized by Turkey, but everyone else considers it either occupied by Turkey or a renegade province. Etc. Therefore, it is quite important to state that the State of Israel is not recognized as existing at all and does not figure in the minds of many. It even does not appear on their maps. Don't you think this is a unique and an important aspect to include?173.74.22.141 (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. And as far as I know, Wikipedia is not intended for the propagation of Western, American or Israeli views, but rather to provide a balanced universal view.173.74.22.141 (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Another P.S. I tried taking a picture with my subject saying Pluto and it did not come out looking good. Thus, by experiment, Pluto does not equal Cheese.173.74.22.141 (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The issue of recognition is separate from what this should be stated for the name. This article is about the State of Israel. If countries choose not to recognize it, then that is an issue that is covered separately from "what is the State of Israel called." That is an issue discussed in the foreign relations section of this article, and the full page on Foreign relations of Israel, and International recognition of Israel. Thus, despite any posturing to the contrary, we do cover the issue of recognition. It just is not an issue relevant to the name of the state those countries are or are not choosing to recognize.

To go with your example of Taiwan, that article does discuss recognition issues and Chinese claims, but does not put "Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China" as one of the names, as that is not what the article is about. There is more weight given to the recognition issue in the Taiwan article, but that is because it is far more of a glaring issue. Taiwan does not have the recognition of the United Nations and is recognized by only 23 out of 193 nations of the world, less than 12%. Not one of these is a major power, western or otherwise, none even approaching growing powers such as Brazil. Israel, on the other hand, has full UN recognition and is recognized by some 157 nations out of 193, or more than 80%. This includes the major world powers, both Eastern and Western, and growing powers such as Brazil, India, Turkey, etc. The issue of Israeli recognition should be and already is covered. It does not need to be covered with the same weight as that of Taiwan as their two situations are entirely different in scope and scale. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

So you are telling me that if, say, I make an article about Yahweh I should not say that other people call Him God the father or Allah or El or whatever becuase since I used the name Yahweh, and He is recognized by a major world religion(s), then I have to talk about Him only from a Jewish POV? Or if we talk about Allah then we can only say what Arabs say He is? Of course not. Your point about Tawian is well taken. However, be it that Tawian is an independent state or a renegade province still does not raise the issue of it being called "Taiwan" but the argument is about its classification. With Israel, like I said before, the argument of both camps revolve around if we do have a state called Israel or its complete negation and calling it Occupied Palestine. Notice that in the second name, again, Israel does not exist, and we are still talking about the same political entity, defined as the same geography with certain borders, same population, same resources in the ground, etc. So what I am asking about is not related primarily to recognition and how many for vs. against, but the fact that for Israel there some countries for, some countries against, and some countries do not even know that it exists on the face of earth. To them, and they are many, it is simply called something else in reflection to a different but valid view of reality.173.74.22.141 (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

No, you are getting away from the point here. The point is that the extremely few nations that view the State of Israel as 'Occupied Palestine' is irrelevant here (and is discussed on the Land of Israel page. These are fringe views well outside the mainstream of nations. Israel as a political entity is recognized by the United Nations, the European Union, the United States--as well as the vast super-majority of most smaller nations and political organizations. Even mentioning the word 'occupied' is unnecessary, POV, and frankly false. 07:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that most of the world's countries do recognize Israel and Israel is a member of the UN etc., but to say that the non-recognition would be a fringe opinion doesn't ring true. The Arab bloc in general doesn't recognize Israel and Israel is often referred to using the phrase "Zionist Entity" or similar expressions. --Dailycare (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

How come?

Howcome you are using the King James Version of the Christian Bible to explain the biblical history of the Jews? That makes no sense. You wouldn't use the Koran to explain it would you? Opportunidaddy (talk) 05:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure it was the KJV and not the 1917 JPS translation, which is based on it? If it is the KJV, the reason is not malice but laziness. Nobody has bothered to use a Jewish translation. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I just fixed it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Template not displaying properly.

I'm getting a "template:Navboxes" displaying at Israel#External_links that should be showing international memberships. Is it just me? When I preview it seems o.k., but when I save the edit it is still messed up. Any pros out there who can fix that? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Slight spelling/grammatical error

"The conflict erupted in 167 BCE, with the Maccabean Revolt, which succeeded to establish an independent Hasmonean Kingdom in Judah, which later expanded over much of modern Israel, as the Seleucids were gradually ![loosing their control]! of the region." Edit to "losing" or "loosening". Thanks.

Done. --Dailycare (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Conflicts and peace treaties

Please add the summary templates to the "Conflicts and peace treaties" section, like that:

Main articles: Wars involving Israel and Peace process in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Further information: Arab–Israeli conflict and Israeli–Palestinian conflict

--87.225.60.1 (talk) 04:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

there is a mistake in the legal part

for some years now there are 6 district courts and not 5 as mentioned in the legal part of the artical.

Shimron Yariv 85.64.85.238 (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

"...independent from the British Mandate for Palestine" statement is not supported by the sources

"to be known as the State of Israel, a state independent from the British Mandate for Palestine." Not supported by the Primary Sources 9 and 11.
Palestine wasn't under any Mandate or the control of the British when the declaration came into effect. The territory declared as Israel was never British, so Israel didn't secede from Britain. Israel was declared independent of ........ talknic (talk) 07:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Im not sure i see the problem with the wording? The CIA world factbook says "Independence - 14 May 1948 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)". which is inline with the article wording too. Israel did not secede from Britain, but its independence was from the British Mandate of Palestine, if is not from that what was it from? The declaration of independence was made the day before the British mandate expired, and Israel came into being after it expired. Was there something in between it? BritishWatcher (talk) 08:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the phrase, a state independent from the British Mandate for Palestine should be deleted. The operative words of the Declaration of 14 May 1948 do not contain such a phrase. Further, the use of the phrase suggests that the Mandate was to continue in some form as when the Colonieas of America declared independence from Britain. Despite its universal use, I think that it is wrong even to talk about Israel obtaining independece. The word establishment in the Declaration of 14 May 1948 is correct and quite sufficient. Trahelliven (talk) 10:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The CIA factbook supports the wording, and the sentence makes sense. I see no problem with it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Not really, "to be known as the State of Israel, a state independent from the British Mandate for Palestine" doesn't really make sense. If it is supposed to mean that Israel seceded from the Mandate, that is not the plain meaning of these words. Better think of some wording which is clearer, or just delete it. Zero^talk 10:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Ive no problem with the wording being changed if there is a better way of saying it, but i dont think its right to go down the path that appeared to be suggested that there was not "independence", Israel did become independent from the British Mandate of Palestine on its expiry, which is what the sources say and the declaration specifically states about the expiry of the mandate. I dont see how it is that different from other nations independence where one power ceases to have power or authority and then a new state is formed and independent instantly.

Looking at the full paragraph in the article, how about spitting the sentence in two and putting the mandate expiry at the start of the second sentence? BritishWatcher (talk) 12:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Or something like..

"Following the adoption of a resolution by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 29 November 1947 recommending the adoption and implementation of the United Nations partition plan to replace the British Mandate for Palestine, On 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion, the Executive Head of the World Zionist Organization^[8] and president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared the establishment of an independent Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel after the expiry of the British Mandate the next day." BritishWatcher (talk) 12:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Works for me. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Change "On" to "on". Not sure about "the next day" since the mandate expired at midnight. How about "...from the expiry of the British Mandate that evening"? Zero^talk 12:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion - //Following the 29 November 1947 adoption of resolution 181 by the United Nations General Assembly, on 14th May 1948 David Ben-Gurion declared the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel. The declaration came into into effect at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.// talknic (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I prefer BritishWatcher's version. Why is Washington time important again? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm OK with BritishWatcher's suggestion. We don't need to get into the legal details. --Dailycare (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Dailycare/NMMNG -- A) BW's suggestion is a bit of a ramble. For the sake of readers, surely information ought be imparted concisely per WP:MOSINTRO. There's no need to elaborate on Ben Gurion's status in the Lede, B) "the next day" is rather vague. Is there a problem with the exact time, given by an official Israeli representative? talknic (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I have problems with some of the suggestions

1 Where does the phrase, one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time come from? In any event on the face of it, the Declaration was to take place immediately, What was to take effect from the moment of the termination of the Mandate was the the People's Council shall act as a Provisional Council of State, and its executive organ, the People's Administration, shall be the Provisional Government of the Jewish State, to be called "Israel".

2 If you mention the resolution of 29 November, you should also refer to BY VIRTUE OF OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT.

3 In the operative part of the Declaration, the word independent is not used.

4 Israel was a successor state to the the British Mandate, rather than independent of it.

5 Ben-Gurion did not declare the proclamation: he merely read it.

In my view the sentence should read:

On May 14, 1948, on the day in which the British Mandate over Palestine expired, the Jewish People's Council gathered at the Tel Aviv Museum, and approved a proclamation which declared the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel. Trahelliven (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Trahelliven -- 1) From the official representative of the Jewish Agency to the US May 15th 1948 [3]

"... the Declaration was to take place immediately" It couldn't. Palestine was under the control of the British until midnight May 14th 1948. 'independence' means not being under the control of any other entity. The declaration could not come into effect until after the Mandate ended.

2 "If you mention the resolution of 29 November, you should also refer to BY VIRTUE OF OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT" The resolution is already mentioned. There's been no move to have the other reference.

3) In the Declaration "AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY" UNGA res 181 "C. DECLARATION - A declaration shall be made to the United Nations by the Provisional Government of each proposed State before independence."

4 "Israel was a successor state to the the British Mandate, rather than independent of it" Under what mandate, convention or resolution did it become a successor state?

Re - your suggestion .. Mention should be made tho that the declaration only came into effect only after the Mandate expired talknic (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

talknic

My comments to your comments are as follows:

1 From the official representative of the Jewish Agency to the US May 15th 1948 [2]

"... the Declaration was to take place immediately" It couldn't. Palestine was under the control of the British until midnight May 14th 1948. 'independence' means not being under the control of any other entity. The declaration could not come into effect until after the Mandate ended.

I agree that the Declaration could not come int effect until 15 May. It has been suggested that the premature proclamation of the declaration makes the latter invalid. If you want to amend the Declaraton by refering to the letter to President Truman, that should be made explicit. Should you not also rectify the Declaration by including the reference in the letter to Truman of the limiting of the boundaries of the new state to those set out in the Resolution of 29 November?

2 "If you mention the resolution of 29 November, you should also refer to BY VIRTUE OF OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT" The resolution is already mentioned. There's been no move to have the other reference.

3) In the Declaration "AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY" UNGA res 181 "C. DECLARATION - A declaration shall be made to the United Nations by the Provisional Government of each proposed State before independence."

2 and 3

If the declaration was relying on the Resolution of 29 November alone, the declaration was two months premature since the Resolution contained the following provision:

3. Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in part III of this plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948. The boundaries of the Arab State, the Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem shall be as described in parts II and III below.

4 "Israel was a successor state to the the British Mandate, rather than independent of it" Under what mandate, convention or resolution did it become a successor state?

Israel became a successor state to the British Mandate by operation of international law, See Wikipedia article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Successor_state. Trahelliven (talk) 00:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to have another thought. You can talk in the abstract of a country being independent. You can talk of Israel being independent of any existing country but you can't talk of being independent of an entity that no longer exists. i.e. the British Mandate. Trahelliven (talk) 10:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Trahelliven -- I've tidied your indentation for others. Hope that's OK

"Israel became a successor state" Read carefully ... based on a perceived historical relationship the new state has with a prior state. Which prior state? Especially as no one will allow the mention of Palestine being a Provisional State per the LoN Covenant and the LoN Mandate for Palestine.

"you can't talk of being independent of an entity that no longer exists. i.e. the British Mandate." precisely!

The "Declaration of the Establishment of" is different from 'come into existence'. There were three parties to the deal offered by UNGA Res 181, The Jewish Agency, the Arab States and the UN. The Jewish Agency and the Arab States had until 1 October 1948, wherein, if the Arab States had decided to declare independence and remember it cannot be mandatory for any entity to declare independence, then "Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in part III of this plan, shall come into existence in Palestine".

BUT by default of becoming independent Israel was no longer in Palestine. An Independent state cannot be in another entity.

Furthermore the Provisional Israeli Govt acknowledged on the 22nd May 1948 "territories outside the State of Israel" also acknowledging the existence of "Palestine" talknic (talk) 11:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Independence from the British Mandate of Palestine is how it is viewed. it does not have to necessarily be worded in such a way, but that is what happened. I too was not that keen on "the next day" in the suggestion i made above, but how about if it is more specific.

Following the adoption of a resolution by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 29 November 1947 recommending the adoption and implementation of the United Nations partition plan to replace the British Mandate for Palestine, on 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion, the Executive Head of the World Zionist Organization^[8] and president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared the establishment of an independent Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel after the expiry of the British Mandate at midnight that evening." ? BritishWatcher (talk) 10:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

or that night. or at midnight on 15 May. What ever is clearer. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

"Independence from the British Mandate of Palestine is how it is viewed." Pity to be mis-informing people, because that is NOT 'what happened' out by a minute. One very important minute when the territory allotted for the Jewish State was not under the control of any entity but the Declaring party.

Re - your suggestion. A) the description of Ben Gurion's positions does not belong in the Lede. B) It wasn't 'that night' it was at one minute past midnight, which is the AM and it wasn't at midnight on May 15th. Why not give the precise time? talknic (talk) 12:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The problems with the Declaration of 14 May 1948 arise from the ambiguity of it legai basis.

1 The Resolution of 29 November 1947 - legal

2 The Jewish historical links to Palestine - historical

3 The use of the term Eretz Israel - religous.

The words Following the adoption of a resolution by the United Nations ... implies only the first. The use of the term Eretz Israel implies that the boundaries of the new state might exceed those given in the Resolution. Further, as I indicated above, the declaration was two months premature. This amounted to two breaches of the Resolution. The wording of the Declaration gives no indication of when it is to take effect. We do know that Ben-Gurion read the declaration some hours befor midnight on 14 May, Palestine time.

To avoid all these complications in describing the event the wording should be made as concise as possible. Trahelliven (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Trahelliven -- That's for somewhere else. The issue here is "...independent from the British Mandate for Palestine" statement is not supported by the sources" talknic (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC):Trahelliven -- That's for somewhere else. The issue here is "...independent from the British Mandate for Palestine" statement is not supported by the sources" talknic (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Trahelliven -- "the declaration was two months premature". You're misreading UNGA res 181. There were three parties to the deal offered by UNGA Res 181. The Jewish Agency, the Arab States and the UN. The Jewish Agency and the Arab States had until 1 October 1948 to select a non political party to declare independence. For The Jews it was the Jewish People's Council and; From the resolution: "The Provisional Council of Government of each State shall, not later than two months after the withdrawal of the armed forces of the mandatory Power, hold elections to the Constituent Assembly which shall be conducted on democratic lines."

If both parties declared by 1 October 1948, "Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in part III of this plan, shall come into existence in Palestine". Neither party could be obliged to declare 'independence'. The Arab States didn't and; the corpus separatum was never instituted. Israel did.

Only the territory that became Israel changed status. corpus separatum was never separated from Palestine, only Israel was. Which is why UNSC resolutions 252 says "actions taken by Israel, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, which tend to change the legal status of Jerusalem are invalid and cannot change that status;" and; UNSC res 476 says "1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;"

Re the term "Eretz Israel". It was already accepted. [4] talknic (talk) 23:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

This simple wording avoids all these problems:

On May 14, 1948, on the day in which the British Mandate over Palestine expired, the Jewish People's Council gathered at the Tel Aviv Museum, and approved a proclamation, immediately read by David Ben-Gurion, which declared the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel.

I have sdded the reference to Ben-Gurion.Trahelliven (talk) 22:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Trahelliven -- Formatted again for others to be able to follow.. OK?

The 'problem' is: not imparting knowledge to readers. Like, the precise time it came into effect? Why purposefully omit valuable information? Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic! talknic (talk) 23:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

If you want to give the time of the declaration becoming effective, you need to give a reference to the documents refering to the time. As far as I am aware the only document is the letter from ELIAHU EPSTEIN seeking recognition from the United States, where the time is shown as one minute after six o'clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time, Israel–United States relations - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93United_States_relations#Recognition_of_the_state_of_Israel. I am curious to know where Mr Epstein got that time. You might also note that Mr Epstein makes the curious (and incorrect) statement that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947. If you want to add more facts, I think further material should be added, possibly in the way that I did in the article, Israel–United States relations. Trahelliven (talk) 03:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Trahelliven - (indented your post OK? Please help make it easy to follow)

If there are no other sources giving the precise time, the Epstein letter is the majority view.

"Mr Epstein makes the curious (and incorrect) statement" The Israeli Govt, in its statement to the UNSC 22nd May 1948, confirms Mr Epstein's statement. The suppression of knowledge is not the notion behind an encyclopedia. talknic (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Talknic - I hope it meets with your approval, I stll do not like the word independence in this context. Trahelliven (talk) 07:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I still like BritishWatcher's version. You people have received several explanations by several editors on why Epstein's letter should not be used, but you keep coming back to it. That's tendentious. To recap, this is a letter by someone who was not on the ground at a time of war and conflicts with the official policy of the leaders who were in fact on the ground. Quoting it extensively is UNDUE. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG I must confess I have forgotten the details of the discussions we might have had about Mr Epstein. Could you remind me again. In particular where was he at the time? Who exactly gave him authority to contact the US President? His letter indeed seems to be in conflict with the Declaration of 14 May which on the face of it seems to claim the whole of Eretz Israel for the new state. Trahelliven (talk) 10:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Epstein was in Washington and the deceleration does not on its face claim the whole of Eretz Israel. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The “a state independent from the British Mandate for Palestine” imo really should be removed from the lede, it suggests to the reader that the British Mandate for Palestine continued after Israel's independence in the rest of the former mandate after May 15th 1948. If that were the case, the Palestinians would probably also have their state by now. As far as the time is concerned, I cannot see why it is important, the 14th was a Friday, and therefore the mandate expired on Friday night, the Jewish Sabbath, which, like every other day of the Jewish calendar, begins in the (early) evening, and the declaration was made before the beginning of the Sabbath. The declaration states that it is “with effect from the moment of the termination of the Mandate being tonight, the eve of Sabbath, the 6th Iyar, 5708 (15th May, 1948)” – coordinating Jewish and common dates are a bit of a problem, but I don't think that that bothered anybody. I also think that Ben Gurion should not have that much center stage in the sentence, and that the Jewish People's Council should be mentioned, not the Jewish Agency and the World Zionist Organization. What about something like:

• Following the adoption of a resolution by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 29 November 1947 recommending the adoption and implementation of the United Nations partition plan to replace the British Mandate for Palestine, on 14 May 1948, the day on which the British Mandate expired, the Jewish People's Council in a proclamation read by David Ben-Gurion, declared the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel. Or:
• On 14 May 1948, the day on which the British Mandate over Palestine expired, the Jewish People's Council declared in a proclamation read by David Ben-Gurion the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel.? Ajnem (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree re: Jewish People's Council. I still think the word independent/ce should be in there somewhere. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

1 I agree that the version by Ajnem is the best I have seen.

On 14 May 1948, the day on which the British Mandate over Palestine expired, the Jewish People's Council declared in a proclamation read by David Ben-Gurion the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel.

2 The wording, with effect from the moment of the termination of the Mandate being tonight, the eve of Sabbath, the 6th Iyar, 5708 (15th May, 1948) does not refer to the time at which the Declaraton comes into effect; rather it refers to the moment in time when the People's Council starts to act as a Provisional Council of State.

3 NMMNG has reverted my edit. If the words in the Declaration in Eretz Israel are not intended to define the boundaries of the new State, then presumably the letter from Mr Epstein is the first document that does. It is therefore important and should be included. Trahelliven (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

"Presumably" doesn't work. You need an RS discussing the letter and its implications. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Partial UNDO of NMMNG's revert. Rationale: Provided reliable Secondary Source as requested by NMMNG, cut down on 'extensive' quotes. Gave the exact time the Declaration was to come into effect, i.e., AFTER the Mandate for Palestine had expired talknic (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG - "You people have received several explanations by several editors on why Epstein's letter should not be used" remind me and I'll remind you of all the Secondary Sources supplied at the time, which you falsely claimed were not there.

"but you keep coming back to it. That's tendentious" Attempting to inform readers is not tendentious. Purposefully preventing relevant information on behalf of readers, because you don't like it, is tendentious. Your RS requirements have been fulfilled.

"To recap, this is a letter by someone who was not on the ground at a time of war" Epstein was 'on the ground' in the US in his official capacity as an official representative of Provisional Government of Israel talknic (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Re Opening Sentence: Ajnem's suggestion solves the "independent from the British Mandate for Palestine" problem talknic (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

All

I agree with at least some of what NMMNG says. I don't think we need the letter of Epstein to be quoted in this article. The two details it contains seem to be too technical for the main article on Israel. Whether independence occurred at midnight (as at least one strong source, and apparently Israeli law itself, says, or at one minute past midnight as Epstein's letter (assuming my time zone calculations are correct) and at least one lesser secondary source says, doesn't actually matter that much. The fact that Israel a few times claimed to be respecting borders which in fact it had already decided to not respect is more interesting, but more at the detail level of Borders of Israel rather than here (saying that without prejudice to the sourcing question). Zero^talk 10:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I also don't think this UN document belongs in this article either, for the same reason, but for the record it is a bit mangled probably due to OCR errors. The reply to question (a) actually reads "The Provisional Government of Israel exercises control at present over the entire area of the Jewish State as defined in the Resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947. ..." (from the official records). Zero^talk 10:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know there's pretty much wall to wall consensus among scholars that the Jewish leadership deliberately did not commit to any borders. Taking an obscure letter, without strong sourcing, and trying to use that to contradict what experts in the field say is not allowed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The case is proved beyond dispute that the Provisional Government did not decide on particular borders. If that's what you mean, you are right. On the other hand they were less than open with the world about their decision. The UN document being quoted here shows Israel telling the UN that Jewish forces were outside the partition boundaries only for "imperative military reasons, and as a part of an essentially defensive plan". When Abba Eban presented these answers to the Security Council on 22nd May, 1948, he was even more precise in person than appears in the written statement he provided: "Whenever such phrases occur as 'the frontiers of the State of Israel' or 'the territory of the State of Israel', the reference is to the area outlined in the map appended to the resolution of 29 November 1947, as constituting the area assigned to the Jewish State." (I got this from the Security Council Official Records, Third Year, No. 72; id = S/PV.301, but it's easy to find good secondary sources that discuss it and add other examples.) Zero^talk 13:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG -- Your edit war revert: The edit fulfilled all the requirements you gave for your previous revert, being "You need an RS discussing the letter and its implications".

New reason given for your edit war revert: "we've been over using a quote of a primary document in a book and calling it a secondary source. take it to rs/n" A) The reason you gave for the second revert contradicts the reason you gave for the first revert. B) Show where 'we've been over'. C) A book is a Secondary Source. D) Taking it to RS/N. In order to see if a source is reliable it would be checked for context against the document it cites. You're challenging, you take it there.

This is hilarious -- "Taking an obscure letter" An official letter from the official representative of the Provisional Israeli Government to the US President re Israeli independence asking for recognition. " without strong sourcing" A Secondary Source was given (one of many), it can be proven to be WP:RS by the President's archives. "and trying to use that to contradict what experts in the field say is not allowed." These experts in the field, they've given the exact time the declaration was to come into effect? Please start citing them. If there is only one Primary Source giving the exact time and cited in numerous Secondary Sources, all of which can be proven to be RS by the Primary Source, it is the majority view. Deliberately attempting to prevent readers from being informed because you don't like it is against policy. talknic (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Zero0000 -- I've not suggested the unispal.un.org document be in the article. I gave it so folk could find Secondary Sources. Numerous are available.

"The case is proved beyond dispute that the Provisional Government did not decide on particular borders" Correct  :-) The Provisional Govt only came into being after the State of Israel was declared as established. State first, then Govt.

" The two details it contains seem to be too technical for the main article on Israel." I've only suggested one. The time. Which is important to readers who we must presume know nothing of the subject. Your source shows " so as to avoid conflicting with the Mandate". One cannot declare effective independence whilst under the control of another party/entity/Power. If there is only one Reliable Source giving the exact time and none refuting, it is the majority view.

"but it's easy to find good secondary sources that discuss it and add other examples." Been there tried that, with numerous Secondary Sources. There is a certain pool of editors who will do anything to prevent readers from having this information talknic (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

CAN WE PLEASE ADDRESS THE ISSUE AT THE TOP OF DISCUSSION? It seems to be only No More Mr Nice Guy holding up the process wanting independent/ce in there somewhere, but offering no solution himself. Consensus seems to be in favour of On 14 May 1948, the day on which the British Mandate over Palestine expired, the Jewish People's Council declared in a proclamation read by David Ben-Gurion the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel. talknic (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Simply as a matter of easier reading and avoiding losing the flow of the original words, perhaps it might go:

On 14 May 1948, the day on which the British Mandate over Palestine expired, the Jewish People's Council, in a proclamation read by David Ben-Gurion, declared the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel. Trahelliven (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Trahelliven/Others -- As currently suggested, the statement conveys the impression Israel was established at the time of the reading. It was not. HERE it says: On May 14, 1948, on the day in which the British Mandate over a Palestine expired, the Jewish People's Council gathered at the Tel Aviv Museum, and approved the following proclamation, declaring the establishment of the State of Israel". The 'reading' by David Ben-Gurion was of what was "approved" to be the "Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel".

The Jewish People's Council was not in a position to 'declare' an independent state as established until AFTER the Mandate ended, at six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time. The 'declaration' itself was not effective at the time of the reading.

NMMNG wants to include independent/ce. Israel could not possibly have been 'declared established' or 'independent' until the morning of May 15th 1948. An editors responsibility is to inform readers. Purposefully preventing readers from being informed (via NOPV/Reliable/Verifiable information), is completely at odds with Wikipedia policies, even when by consensus. Secondary Sources are judged as Reliable or not on the point being made in the Article statement.

A statement giving the 'time' is not a statement on 'borders'. Why are editors trying to prevent readers from learning the actual 'time' of "the Establishment of the State of Israel"? talknic (talk) 06:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Talknic, I am mystified why you think the "one minute after six o'clock" is significant here, and you don't actually have a source for it. The source you have only shows that the Israeli representative Epstein wrote that to the US president, not that it was true. Regarding "Washington time", it is highly implausible that the Provisional Council deliberately used a US time zone and much more likely that Epstein just converted it for American convenience. There is no reason for us to convert it too. Moreover, the "one minute past" is entirely absent from the ordinance establishing Israeli law and as far as I can determine it is entirely absent from Israeli law. It is also contradicted by an article by an Israeli judge that I cited above. I assume that Epstein didn't just make it up, but even that much we don't really know. Until a proper discussion of it is found (please!) it remains an unexplained curiosity. Zero^talk 07:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I am also at a loss to understand the dispute over the word "independent". I mean, really, who cares? Does anyone think that Israel was declared to be a state which was not independent? Would any reader imagine anything different, whether the sentence has the word "independent" or not? Zero^talk 07:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I share Zero0000's mind about Talknic remarks. Why does he focus on such details nobody understands the interest ? His behaviour is conflictual, generates stress and is time consuming on articles that are difficult to write with consensus !

I think the opposition to the word "independant" comes from the fact that getting independence is usually seen as an act of "legitimaty" because the claim for independance [usually from an oppressor] is seen positively ; whereas the creation of Israel and its legitimaty is still seen by "some" as unlegitimate and British Mandate is not considered as oppressing by any...

Anyway, for more than 60 years Israel has been and independent [from any other state] and is legitimate in the international community [eg as member of the UN]. I think that in this article (about "Israel", not about controversies !), it would give too much weight (read "undue weight") to the point of view of those who consider[ed] Israel as "unlegitimate". We can state that : "Israel became independent on May 14, 1948 at the end of the British Mandate" as reported maybe not in all but in numerous reliable sources about the History of Israel. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Pluto2012 -- Has nothing to do with legitimacy. It has to do with when! And it was not on the 14th May 1948. The 'reliable sources' are not reliable on the point, doesn't matter how many there are. The Mandate ended at midnight Palestine time May 14th 1948. The next second was in 15th May 1948 in Palestine. Only then was there freedom to declare 'independence' talknic (talk) 10:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Zero0000 -- Well, I'm mystified by your comments. Last point first. That's not the issue, it is WHEN it became independent. It could not have been, as the current suggestion implies, at the time the declaration was read. As for sources, how many would you like? I've been supplying Secondary Sources for over a year. Here's another [5]. To verify it's accuracy, the Primary Source. Do you really think on such an important matter the US President was given a letter containing some nonsense? Whether at Washington time or Palestinian time, Israel was not independent on the 14th May 1948.

" Until a proper discussion of it is found (please!) " it would not belong in the opening paragraph of the Lede. By all means pro-con in a separate section. As for it being a 'curiosity', hardly. It was the basis on which Israel was recognized by the USA. talknic (talk) 10:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Pluto2012 -- " Why does he focus on such details nobody understands the interest ? His behaviour is conflictual, generates stress and is time consuming on articles that are difficult to write with consensus !" Exacting is not conflictual. Attempting to suppress information "some" folk don't want read is conflictual and against policy if that information is presented within the parameters of editorial policy.

As for generating stress and consuming time on articles, I spent over a year attempting to have the NPOV addressed in the Lede of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. For over a year and many thousands of words I was opposed, hounded, edit warred, banned and the Lede stood in contravention of NPOV, by consensus. The length of the various discussions was the making of those who sought to contravene policy and have me banned. Without my perseverance the Lede would still be in contravention of editorial policies [6]

I brought the issue of "independent from the British Mandate for Palestine" to Talk, that much of it has been agreed upon, so how is it "conflictual". Now the statement implies Israel was independent as of the time the proclamation was read. It was clearly not.

"I think the opposition to the word "independant"...". I haven't opposed the notion. talknic (talk) 11:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Nobody thinks independence began on the 14th (and if they did think that they would be wrong). The article shouldn't give that impression. But you seem hung up on whether it was at midnight or one minute later. The supreme lack of importance of that detail is shown by the fact that of the thousands of sources that discuss Israeli independence none of them (as far as you or I have demonstrated) see fit to say why that minute is important and in fact extremely few of them even bother to mention it. It loses on WP:UNDUE as well as on WP:PRIMARY (a source that reprints a primary source without comment is not a secondary source for it). Zero^talk 11:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I found that the NYT editorial on May 14 says "But actually Jewish Provisional Government is already organized and will proclaim a Jewish State one minute after the Mandate expires." This editorial also confirms that the time difference was 6 hours (different from today). Many other newspapers said "midnight". The Palestine Post (in a better position to know than the NYT) said "midnight" at least 3 times and didn't mention an extra minute. Zero^talk 14:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Zero0000 -- Apologies re previous source, it was a proof of existence for the letter, 'in a book'. ...

From the edit NMMNG reverted.. with commentary on the letter "During the afternoon of May 14, Epstein delivered the following message to the White House and to the State Department. " It then quotes (in part) the letter [7]

Here again is commentary inclusive of that detail "In Tel Aviv, Ben-Gurion declared Israel's independence at 6 PM, Washington time."[8]

Again with commentary "Truman made his declaration in Washington, D.C., at 6:11 P.M. on May 14, 1948 (12:11 A.M., May 15, in Israel)" [9]

Re - "Nobody thinks independence began on the 14th"? From whose perspective? We should presume the reader knows nothing of the subject and as you say, the article shouldn't give the impression it was the 14th. But it does! That's the only date there. Whether a minute or a day or a millisecond after the Mandate expired, Israel's legitimacy as an independent state was only finally established in the first minute of the 15th May 1948, when the declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel came into effect. It could not under the Mandate. Mandate had to end for either party to declare effective independence if they wished, free of the control of any other entity.

Furthermore we should presume the reader knows nothing or will even consider the 6 hours difference or whether dates are given in US time (14th] or Israeli time ("Israel"+"established+on+15+May+1948" 15th) talknic (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the establisment or independence of Israel was probably not intended to come into existence till the first moment of 15 May. Unfortunately the Declaration does not make that clear, even though it states that with effect from the moment of the termination of the Mandate ... until the establishment of the elected, regular authorities of the State ...the People's Council shall act as a Provisional Council of State. The introduction to the MOFA webite - [10] - does not attempt to correct the mistake. I do not think that we should. Trahelliven (talk) 20:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

What about:

• On 14 May 1948, the day on which the British Mandate over Palestine expired, the Jewish People's Council, in a proclamation read by David Ben-Gurion, declared the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel, which came into effect after the mandate expired on 15 May 1948.?
  

The problem with the independent state is that the declaration proclaims a Jewish state, not an independent state. I have a vague memory that the addition of the word independent was rejected at the time, but I'd have to check. And I don't remember why, might have had to do with god, but then again it might have been for some other reason. But Israel's claim to this day is that it is the state of the entire Jewish people, “the sovereign state of the Jewish people”, non Israelis included, which poses some problems. Ajnem (talk) 09:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no doubt whatever that the Mandate expired at midnight of the 14th (Palestine time). That's about the only time which is certain. So:

"On the afternoon of 14 May 1948, the Jewish People's Council, in a proclamation read by David Ben-Gurion, declared the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel, which came into effect after the British Mandate over Palestine expired at midnight." Zero^talk 10:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Fine with me, although the mandate did expire on the 15th if I'm not mistaken. Ajnem (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

This is certainly clearer than what we have now, so I wouldn't object if someone changed it. I'd still like to see independence in there somewhere, though.

Another thing. Is it correct to say the Mandate "expired"? I think it was supposed to expire in August, and the British cut it short. Perhaps "terminated by the British" is more precise? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

When the British first said they would withdraw, they said by August. But they brought it forward. There's a great article in the Pal Post of May 11: "With only four days to go, a dispute has arisen as to when exactly the British Mandate over Palestine is to end. Some suggest one hour after midnight on Friday, others say 12 o'clock noon on Saturday. ... Sir Alexander Cadogan, the British delegate to the UN, asked about this matter, said: 'What difference does it make at what hour the Mandate ends?' ". The High Commissioner issued "Official Communique (No. 156)" only on Wednesday: "Legally the Mandate terminates immediately after midnight on the night 14/15 May." That "immediately after" rather than "at" is clearly a ploy to confuse pedants. Zero^talk 14:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

That ploy is obviously still working, almost 65 years later. So which is more correct, "terminated" or "expired"? Or some other term? I think it should include the fact that this was on the initiative of the British rather than the UN or someone else. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it should be mentioned but I think this sentence is already long enough. Suppose we just write "ended" and later in the article bring some source about how it came to end? Zero^talk 12:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

From the existing Primary Source:

A. TERMINATION OF MANDATE, PARTITION AND INDEPENDENCE

2 x "terminate" -- 7 x "termination" -- 1 x 'expiration' -- 0 x 'expire'/'expiry'/'expired'

Re- "..this was on the initiative of the British rather than the UN or someone else". By necessity of the respective allotted territories being free of the control of any entity, so the parties could, if they wished, declare independent statehood. talknic (talk) 12:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Zero -- Good suggestion, seems to cover all points talknic (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG - You've yet to offer a suggestion as to how "independence" might be included. BTW this (already existing) Primary Source [11] says the Mandate "expired". talknic (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Isn't “terminated” enough, without “by the British”? And why is “independent/independence” so important? It wasn't important to the founders of the state of Israel, although the word “sovereign” does occur in the proclamation. However, “establishment of a sovereign Jewish state in Eretz Israel” doesn't sound any better in my ears than “establishment of an independent Jewish state in Eretz Israel”. But personally I have no problem with Israel's independence, it isn't a member of any supranational organisation which would restrict it. Ajnem (talk) 10:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Ajnem -- Israel’s Declaration of Independence "Not only did it formally declare the independence of the State ...". C. DECLARATION "A declaration shall be made to the United Nations by the Provisional Government of each proposed State before independence" ... Effective independence is a pre-requisite to sovereignty. The Mandate had to end so both party's territories were free of British control before they could be effectively independent. free of the control of any other power [12]. ... talknic (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

All - In Resolution 181(II), the UNGA Takes note of the declaration by the mandatory Power that it plans to complete its evacuation of Palestine by 1 August 1948. Does anyone know the document where Britain brought forward the decision to 14-15 May 1948? I have found a document, which looks very officail? Unfortunately when I tried to include it in my post, it was barred as being spam. If you put the following phrase in the search window in Google, it should turn up - Termination of the British Mandate for Palestine document. It is a pdf document and the search result reads as follows:- PALESTINE: TERMINATION OF THE MANDATE 15 MAY 1948 [His ... www.ismi.emory.edu/.../TerminationOfTheMandate.pdf - United States Block all www.ismi.emory.edu results File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View PALESTINE: TERMINATION OF THE MANDATE. 15 MAY 1948. [His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Trahelliven (talk) 07:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Trahelliven -- This has been brought up before. As a starting point, British Hansard probably has a record. talknic (talk) 08:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Re - the use of the term, Eretz-Israel being a reference to borders?

Statement in the Article: The only reference in the text of the Declaration to the borders of the new state is the use of the term, Eretz-Israel.
One could equally say - by the use in the resolution of ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, borders were referenced. The Jewish assembly did after all, accept the Partition Plan in the resolution talknic (talk) 08:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

In attempting to push the POV Israel had no borders, editors are creating a minefield. Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon ALL had defined and recognized borders BEFORE the Partition Plan was adopted and BEFORE Israel was declared. Those borders, by default, were in part the borders of Israel and in part the borders of what would remain of Palestine after Israel declared.

The ONLY border that didn't exist prior to the early morning of May 15th (Israeli time 1948), were the borders between Israel (renamed territory) and what remained of Palestine, except of course in the Plan for Partition the Jewish Agency accepted and by which Israel was first recognized by the USA at 12:11am (Israeli time). talknic (talk) 08:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Eretz-Israel ,(the Land of Israel) is the term for the land that was befor established the State of Israel. פארוק (talk) 05:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

SInce there is no explicit specification of borders in the resolution, it is OR to state there is or isn't implicit specification. Zero^talk 12:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Zero -- The argument can also be made that: since there is no explicit specification of borders in the Declaration, it is OR to state there is or isn't implicit specification. However, the already existing borders of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon were never determined by UNGA res 181 or Israel's Declaration and;

UNGA Res 181, has very specific details on the boundaries of each proposed state. Scores of Secondary Sources can be provided, referencing those very specific boundaries.[13] [14] [15] etc. As long as editors determine what they DO NOT want to go into articles, this can go on forever. An editors responsibility is to present information, with out bias, not prevent information they don't like from being read talknic (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

talknic The text of the United States recognition was as follows:-

This Government has been informed that a Jewish state has been proclaimed in Palestine, and recognition has been requested by the provisional Government thereof. The United States recognizes the provision government as the de facto authority of the new State of Israel. (sgn.) Harry Truman Approved May 14, 1948 6.11

Truman's note does not mention borders, although in view of Epstein's letter, it may be implied that the recognition was limited to the Boundaries in the Resolution of 29 November. Trahelliven (talk) 06:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It is hard for me to figure out who is on which side in this argument. In any case, the statement "The only reference in the text of the Declaration to the borders of the new state is the use of the term, Eretz-Israel" is wrong. The use of the term "Eretz-Israel" in the declaration is not a reference to Israel's borders, either implicit or explicit. According to Gideon Biger and David Settner in "'The Ploughshare Shall Make the Border': The Israel-Jordan Border 1922 - 1994" (Researches on the creation of Israel, Vol. 17 (2007) pp 413-429): "On 14 May 1948, the State of Israel was declared, without specifying the borders of the State." (p 417) The framers of the declaration most certainly avoided any suggestion as to what the borders of the newfound state would be, as it was clear that these would be determined de facto by the outcome of the armed conflict. I suppose in a sense the use of the term "Eretz Israel" could be reference to the general location of the new state - in CysJordan, rather than, for example, Uganda - but anything beyond that is mere speculation. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that the drafters of the Declaration of 14 May tried to have it both ways. On the one hand the Declararation purports to rely on the Resolution, but on the other they ignores the most fundamental issue, namely the borders of each of the two states. Trahelliven (talk) 05:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Capital

Jerusalem cannot be stated as the Capital since UNSC 478 declares that it is not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_478 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.221.66.182 (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Please provide sources which state a country can not decide its own capital city? Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Israel and it should rightly be stated. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Or, to put it another way, Israel is special so we WP:IAR. Formerip (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It's true that the current wording isn't in-line with sources and WP:NPOV since the notion that Jerusalem is Israel's capital is only Israel's view and others disagree, therefore presenting Israel's view as fact isn't right. This is a known issue, as can be seen from the extensive archives of past discussions we have here. --Dailycare (talk) 19:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Dailycare. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

WP is gradually improving. My money is on 2015 for this particular change. Formerip (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

A state decides its own capital city.. that is how it happens all over the world. Show us sources saying a state cannot decide its own capital city? BritishWatcher (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The article properly reports that Israel's capital is Jerusalem and then notes that the rest of the world doesn't recognize it as such. See the lengthy footnote. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Tel Aviv is the Commercial center of the country. Tel Aviv was temporary capital in the 1948 war when Jerusalem was under Jordanian siege and occupation. פארוק (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Funny use of "properly". Formerip (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. Provide reliable sources that say Israel's capital is somewhere other than Jerusalem, and then you'd have a leg to stand on. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Weren't you part of any of the previous discussions about this, Malik? The difficulty is not to do with any lack of sources (first hit on Google: [16]). Formerip (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

that grossly offensive ruling, (and highly controversial decision as the article states) simply says that action cannot be taken against British newspapers if they inaccurately say Tel Aviv is Israel's capital.. It does not state that Tel Aviv is Israel's capital. The British media has sadly been long known for its hostility towards Israel, especially certain broadcasters and newspapers. The PCC is hardly an authoritative institution anyway, it will be abolished soon due to its failure to regulate the press correctly (how ironic). BritishWatcher (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

And the idea a defunct commission has more authority or equal authority to determine the capital of a foreign country is laughable. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem allways was the Capital of the Jewish people in thew all History. פארוק (talk) 10:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's the problem. It's all coming back to me. Sources that either aren't the Israeli government or agree with the Israeli government are null and void. Formerip (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You're right. That's exactly the kind of high quality source an encyclopedia should use for an issue like this. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

and they should also read past discussions on this matter on here. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Britishwatcher, you say that "that grossly offensive ruling (...) simply says that action cannot be taken against British newspapers if they inaccurately say Tel Aviv is Israel's capital". This is incorrect, since at least as far as I can see from the source, the ruling nowhere says that it would be inaccurate to refer to Tel Aviv as the capital. To the contrary, the ruling seems to say that referring to Tel Aviv as the capital is OK. --Dailycare (talk) 18:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The ruling says that the action cannot be taken against British newspapers in terms of accuracy if they decide to say Tel Aviv is Israel's capital. That is not saying Tel Aviv is Israels capital, its basically saying because its not universally accepted that Jerusalem is its capital, they can say something else. We recognise the fact it is not universally accepted.. that is what the note says, but nobody has provided sources saying a country cannot decide its own capital. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Do we need to rephrase the footnote to make it somewhat clearer that Palestine has also decided its own capital via Article 3 of Palestinian Basic Law i.e. "Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine" ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

maybe one tim the world will know: "Jerusalam allwyas was and ever will be the capital of the jewish people". there is only 1 jewish state along 25 arab countries and 56 muslim countries. פארוק (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Palestine is no sovereign state. Why would we want to add items of a wish list to the footnote? --torusJKL (talk) 09:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I see no need for any change to the footnote at present and certainly oppose attempts to remove Israels capital from the infobox. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

@torusJKL Why ? Because it's true and this is an encyclopedia. Both the State of Israel and the State of Palestine have proclaimed Jerusalem as their capital.

@BritishWatcher, I'm not interested in changing the infobox. I'm just talking about the footnote. It currently says "The Palestinian Authority sees East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state". I'm suggesting that it might be better to change it make it clear that Article 3 of Palestinian Basic Law already says "Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine." Sean.hoyland - talk 13:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem was the capital of Israel before the first Arab was born. you can read the history of the jewish people of Israel. פארוק (talk) 10:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

We can say it's their capital if we ignore what the word "capital" means. See [17] "the city or town that functions as the seat of government and administrative centre of a country or region". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

We can say also Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan are also parts of historical Israel from the bible. פארוק (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the current wording is clear enough, they can always follow the note onto the main article covering these sorts of matters. If it mentioned about their law saying it is the capital, we would need additional clarifications to go along with it and there is no need for making the note much much longer. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

@NMMNG, I think it's important to ignore what the word "capital" means to either party and just tell people what each party has said without caring. The reality is described elsewhere. This is about what the parties have said. It's exactly the kind of information I would expect to find in an encyclopedia but it seems to be absent. For example, the lead of the Jerusalem article includes 'Currently, Israel's Basic Law refers to Jerusalem as the country's "undivided capital"' but there is no mention of Palestinian Basic Law. The Division and reunification 1948–1967 section includes details of Israel's Jerusalem Law and the Today section presents the Palestinian perspective in a similar way to the footnote in this article. Again, no mention of Palestinian Basic Law. The Positions on Jerusalem also includes information about Israel's proclamation but not Palestine's proclamation in the lead. The Palestinian National Authority section again says nothing about Palestinian Basic Law. It strikes me as an oversight on our part that we don't include a sentence about this simple fact in the footnote and elsewhere. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the argument that in order to write an encyclopedia we need to ignore what words mean is worthy of a response. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't make that argument. Please address what I actually wrote. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Some points :

• This definition is slightly different with the introduction of the word "usually the seat of..."
• This article is about Israel, not Jerusalem nor Palestine. I think that we don't mind here what the Palestinian Authority did with the same city. Note that the capital they have chosen is East-Jerusalem, not Jerusalem. But it should be pointed out in the article about Jerusalem and about East-Jerusalem that they are capitals of different states/entities. Note this case is not unique : Brussels is the capital of Belgium and also the capital the Flemish Region (whereas is it not its territory).
• I find that in the footnote the mind of the US governement and the internal controversy with the State Department is given far too much place (and so is wp:undue) given all others lack (eg China, European Union, Permanent Security Concil members, ...). We should remove this and just refer to the detailled articles that is given in the note.

Pluto2012 (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the internal US divisions have too much weight in the footnote. Getting rid of the footnote, however, won't work as then we'd need to say in the infobox something like Capital: Jerusalem (proclaimed) and that's met with resistance from some editors in the past. --Dailycare (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland. The truth is in the eye of the beholder. And as I said in my previous post Palestine is no sovereign country and east Jerusalem is still annexed by Israel (a fact). Both parties will have to agree to a solution and should this include east Jerusalem as the capitol of Palestine then you may add it. In the mean time let's keep it to the facts.--torusJKL (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I want to tell you the true. the name Palestine is a Roman name for Israel. according to the Jewish Bible the Palestinians people are that people that came from the Greek island of "Crete". the arabs who lived in Israel took the name Palestine to justify the Muslim conquest of the Land of Israel after the leaving of the Ottoman Turks regime in Israel that brought muslim immigrants from Muslim countries into Israel, so it is a very big lie to say that is a "Palestine people" beacus there is no such thing in our time. Now everybody can open the history books and scholarly books and see if I'm right. פארוק (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• The "truth" is what sources say. That's it. Actually it is not a "fact" that East Jerusalem is "annexed" by Israel but that is another story that is not relevant to this specific issue about reporting what Palestinian Basic Law says.
• I still don't think what the word "capital" means to the parties (or anyone else) is relevant to a decision about whether to include content from Palestinian Basic Law that uses that word. Discussing it is a distraction. We routinely ignore what words mean. It's useful because it avoids pointless and irrelevant discussions about definitions that we can't resolve that aren't our business. For example, the infobox says capital = Jerusalem but we don't concern ourselves with the precise spatial definition of "Jerusalem" as a spatial object with a boundary when we use that word. We just say "Jerusalem" and provide the coordinates for a single point. We don't exclude quotations of statements by the IDF spokesperson that use the word "terrorist" just because the definition of the word is fuzzy or contentious or because the WP:LABEL guideline exists. We can use the quote with contentious or ambiguous terminology attributed to the source without worrying about what the word means. Actual meaning matters when Wikipedia's narrative voice is used to make unattributed statements of fact. That's not what I'm proposing. I'm proposing that the footnote in this article (and others) include what Palestinian Basic Law says because I think that is what an encyclopedia is meant to do.
• Footnote "a" currently includes the statement "The Palestinian Authority sees East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state" so I don't think "we don't mind here what the Palestinian Authority did with the same city" is the case. If it were the case the footnote wouldn't mention the Palestinians at all. At the moment it does, and I think it probably should, but the statement is apparently inconsistent with what Palestinian Basic Law actually says, and it doesn't refer to it (see 2003 Amended Basic Law (current) "Article 3. Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine"). This seems like a simple and genuine content problem to me that has nothing to do with the usual partisan and frankly very silly bickering that goes on here. And note that Palestinian Basic Law says Jerusalem rather than East Jerusalem, although of course it could mean the same thing amongst other things because "Jerusalem" is not defined in the Article itself. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sean,

I may be wrong but I really think the status Palestinians give to Jerusalem is not critical for this article, which focuses on Israel and therefore both this information and the focus on the point of view of the US government should be removed.

Whatever, as you point out maybe with other words, according to wikipedia principles, Jerusalem should be mentionned as both the capital of Israel and the capital of Palestine. From the point of view of Israel, which is relevant on this topic, it is the capital of Israel (even if it is recognized by nearly no other states in the world) and from the point of view of Palestine with the recognition of a significant amount if not a majority of countries all over the world, which is relevant on this topic, Jerusalem East is the capital (even if in the facts it is not the case).

Pluto2012 (talk) 11:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a big difference between a country having a capital that is not internationally recognised like Israel, and an entity which is not a sovereign state laying claim to a city and capital that they have no control over. We must surely treat the two things very differently. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Did Jerusalem ever in the all history was an Arab Capital ? ............... " Jerusalem did not showing in the Koran book even 1 time " the Muslims pray to there holy Mecca with there back to Jerusalem. !!!. פארוק (talk) 07:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The meaning of a capital is defined in the article Capital city. If you disagree with that definition please change it in that article and not here.

I must have missed that note. So if it is already written that both parties see Jerusalem as their capital then we can leave this discussion and go on with our lives, right? --torusJKL (talk) 05:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not interested in the various meanings of the word capital because it is not relevant to this discussion and if someone were to change it because they personally disagree with it their account should be blocked as far as I'm concerned. It isn't written in the footnote that both parties see Jerusalem as their capital. That is probably closer to what it should say. I'm quite happy to stick with The Palestinian Authority sees East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state but I think it should be either preceeded or followed by Article 3 of Palestinian Basic Law states "Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine". Sean.hoyland - talk 06:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

the Israeli Jerusalem has been expanded far longer after the East Jerusalem in all directions. And now the borders of Jerusalem are reach from Bethlehem in the south while in the north it is reach to Ramallah and there are also intention to expand the city more after that. פארוק (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm returning to my initial argument that Palestine is no sovereign country. Just because they write something into their Basic Law does not make it true, legal, recognized and worthy of a change in the current notes. Thus mentioning that they see East Jerusalem as their capital of a future state is the farthest this should go in term of recognition of their wishes. --torusJKL (talk) 07:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe both our Israeli and Persian friend may want to read about Jerusalem and its inhabitants as described in the Hebrew Bible: “Judah could not dislodge the Jebusites, who were living in Jerusalem; to this day the Jebusites live there with the people of Judah.” (Joshua 15:63) And “the Benjamites, however, did not drive out the Jebusites, who were living in Jerusalem; to this day the Jebusites live there with the Benjamites.” (Judges 1:21) Of course, David is supposed to have defeated the Jebusites (1 Chronicles 11:4), but to our best knowledge as of today, both David and Salomon were not what the Bible pretends they were. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to remind everybody that this isn't a forum in which to discuss Jerusalem, Palestine, Palestinians, the Bible, or any other subject. If you don't have constructive suggestions toward improving the article, please keep your thoughts to yourself. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

torusJKL, whay you write concerning Palestine's claim to Jerusalem as capital (true, legal, recognized) applies directly also to Israel's claim to Jerusalem being its capital. It's specifically the case that Israel's claim isn't recognized, is considered illegal and is not seen as reflecting a truth. So I don't see how the other could be dismissed without dismissing the other as well. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm replying to the points down here as the thread above is becoming a bit complicated. I partly agree with Pluto that "the status Palestinians give to Jerusalem is not critical for this article, which focuses on Israel" in the sense that the status anyone, including Israel, gives to Jerusalem isn't critical because other articles address that, but the fact is that a significant part of the article does focus on areas outside of the green line, and understandably so, which includes part of Jerusalem (a word that appears about 100 times in the article+refs by the way). Let's keep this in perspective. I'm only talking about adding a few words to a hidden away explanatory footnote that is there after long discussions to clarify the status of Jerusalem from everyone's, not just Israel's perspective because people insist on the infobox saying capital = Jerusalem (and I agree that the footnote shouldn't focus on the US view so much, so it could be shorter). Sure, we could dump the footnote altogether and move that material, or parts of it, into the article, but then I would argue that if we mention Israel's Jerusalem Law in the article rather than the footnote we should also mention Palestinian Basic Law, and as Dailycare says, without a footnote we would then need to add (proclaimed) next to Jerusalem to maintain NPOV compliance. We are required by policy to tell people what important sources actually say even in explanatory footnotes and WP:CONSENSUS has to be "based in policy, sources, and common sense" rather than arguments about what we personally think about the relative worth of legal documents. The footnote tells readers what Israeli law says about Jerusalem. We have a source that could tell readers what Palestinian law actually, as a matter of fact, says, not just what we think the Palestinians wishes are. We aren't here to recognize either parties wishes. Given our obligations under WP:NPOV I don't see how we can mention one law without the other or why an encyclopedia would even do that. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Please show us where the Cyprus article notes that Northern Cyprus proclaims/uses Nicosia as it's capital. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

No, there's no reason for me to do that. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Not unless you think consistency is important. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I do think consistency is important and if people would like to improve the consistency between this article and the Palestinian territories article infobox/footnote-wise that would be helpful because neither are optimal in my view. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

So why don't you start with the Cyprus article where nobody would recognize you as a partisan, and let us know how that went. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Your response doesn't address the content issues raised here. If you don't want to participate in a constructive way, you don't need to say anything. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

My response addresses your claim that you're interested in maintaining NPOV. While I don't agree that there's an NPOV problem here I identified a less contentious article that is structured in a similar way where you can put this alleged NPOV problem to the test. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay but I'm only interested in responses that address the content issues I've raised here because I think what I've proposed will make the footnote a tiny bit more informative and balanced. Concerns about an editor's POV compromising their editing should be dealt with at arbitration enforcement and if you really do have genuine concerns about me or anyone else I would encourage you to file a report. Partisan editing needs to be eradicated from the topic area because it ruins the topic area. In fact I think test cases should be filed to see whether AE can deal with editors who demonstrate a consistent bias in their editing. I'm really not interested in whether anyone else thinks I'm partisan on this issue because I know they are wrong. Seriously, you have no idea of the extent of my profound insensitivity to political and religious issues of great importance to others. Jerusalem can be demolished, rebuilt and governed as a small and remote province of China as far as I'm concerned, so this isn't about my views compromising my editing. It's just about making the footnote a bit better based on what a pertinent source actually says. I understand that people are very defensive about this city but I just don't care. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

most of the world does not recognize the State of Israel So that's why the most of the embassies are in Tel Aviv. History will judge who's lying and who is telling the truth. and that is the message to all anti-Semites here and everyone who write lies and destroy articles ​​on Israel. פארוק (talk) 06:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Erm, please examine this map: [18]. Formerip (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

International recognition may be beside the point, the article on South Ossetia states that its capital is Tskhinvali even though most countries consider this to be Georgian territory. PatGallacher (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

What South Ossetia says is determined by what reliable sources say about South Ossetia. Likewise what Cyprus says is determined by what reliable sources say about Cyprus. What Israel says is determined by what reliable sources say about Israel. --Dailycare (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that East Germany article describes East Berlin as having been its capital, although this was not universally accepted at the time, even some countries which recognised East Germany sovereignty over the bulk of its territory regarded the status of Berlin as different. PatGallacher (talk) 10:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Capital of Israel is not Jerusalem.

Tel Aviv is the Only capital recognized by the united nations

Source : United Nation resolution number 478

http://www.un.org/french/documents/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/478(1980)&TYPE=&referer=http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9solution_478_du_Conseil_de_s%C3%A9curit%C3%A9_des_Nations_unies&Lang=E — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.128.204.99 (talk) 10:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources which state a country cannot decide its own capital city, or where it says a capital city is only something recognised by the international community and somewhere they base their embassies. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 10:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The recognition issue is covered by footnote [a] in the infobox. See Israel#endnote_capital-disp. Yes, some sources refer to Tel Aviv as Israel's capital but I would expect it to be a tiny minority (...perhaps someone should do an RS survey at some point for interest). Wikipedia just reports what reliable sources say according to WP:NPOV.

Here's a fun idea. List both and note that it's disputed. That would almost seem NPOV! Amazing! 70.78.8.214 (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Constitutional republic?

The infobox classifies Israel as a "unitary parliamentary constitutional republic". This seems to be problematic, given that Israel has no written constitution and operates on the basis of parliamentary supremacy. Omitting the reference to "constitutional" would be more accurate, sinc ethere is really no basis for describing Israel as a constitutional republic. Sarcastic Avenger (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but I would not be surprised if with constitutional they ment by law and referred to Basic Laws of Israel, which is not a constitution but according to non-reliable Wikipedia is a key component of Israel's constitutional law. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Our Jewish Constitution is the Ten Commandments. but the Modern Israel have no Constitution, but only a "Basic laws" of the state. פארוק (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem not capital of Israel

Jerusalem has been the capital of Israel for 3,500 years. Israel was re-constituted (note the 're') in international law at San Remo and the Palestine Mandate. There are far too many historical revisionists, anti-Semites and Islamist's peddling their hatred here. Jerusalem is and always will be the undivided capital of Israel. 'Palestinian' Arabs have Amman as their capital. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.101.238.163 (talk) 12:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

"Please provide reliable sources which state a country cannot decide its own capital city"

Wikipedia is not Israel :

Israel decide jerusalem is its capital. Wikipedia show the fact that jerusalem is not the capital of israel and such decision break the international law. The United nations declare that such law who declare jerusalem as capital of israel are breaking the international law.

Sources :

The United Nation / International law

Resolutions 237-242-405-476-478 http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1967/scres67.htm http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1980/scres80.htm

More clearly, Israel can set is capital to jerusalem its ok, but Wikipedia have to mention that not a single country recognize this town as a capital of israel, and the united nations declare such fact illegal.

Wikipedia is not Israel so let's tell all the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.128.204.99 (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

" Israel can set is capital to Jerusalem its ok, but Wikipedia have to mention that not a single country recognize this town as a capital of israel" - but we do, there is a clear note which explains this matter, as does the article. You have not provided sources which say a country cannot determine its own capital city or that a country needs recognition of its capital for it to be its capital. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me give you an example. The United Kingdom which is a recognised sovereign state considers four of its internal parts to be countries. Wales, Scotland and England all start out by saying they are countries of the UK. Yet do these places have international recognition as countries? no, do they need such recognition? no. So why can a country decide it is made up of four countries, but a country cannot determine its own capital? At least this article gives a note to the fact the jerusalem as caital is not internationally recognized. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

True, the United Kingdom is a sovereign state, israel is not a sovereign state because in the facts, israel border are not recognised and definitive, so United nation and International law have spoken, it is not my opinion.

Jerusalem in particular have a particular status, so make it the capital of israel is like making new york capital of israel, in fact it is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

The relevant question, per NPOV, isn't whether they have any particular kind of official recognition as countries, but whether there exists a real-world controversy over the matter. Formerip (talk) 13:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

No the question would be does any controversy or dispute in the world prevent a state from deciding its own capital city. I dont believe ive seen a source saying a capital needs international recognition to be a capital of a country. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Israel is a sovereign state and it controls Jerusalem, so this is very different to it laying claim to something in the territory of another state.BritishWatcher (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

How is this "different"? If one lives on a property, but another, with the support of friends, refuses to acknowledge the existence of the initial claimant and another subsequently claims that property, who justly owns said property? How then can the author claim that Israel's capital is Jerusalem, which is a disputed territory and not generally recognized by the international community? --110.132.18.175 (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

BW, your question has nothing to do with Wikipedia content. It's just an abstract legal-philosophical question to which different philosophers of law will give you different answers according to their personal prejudices.

What matters for WP is what is verifiable. It turns out that it is both verifiable that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and verifiable that it isn't, with a good number of quality sources on each side. Policy is clear about how we are supposed to handle that: If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. I don't believe that there's any policy that provides an exception based on what sources may or may not be entitled to say. Formerip (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You are mistaken. We have high quality sources that say that it's the capital but is not recognized as such. We have ZERO high quality sources that say it isn't. What we have is a couple of UK newspapers that do. That's it. And that's not enough. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's quite right. High quality sources tend to say that Israel says that it's the capital rather than it is the capital. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

And, obviously, sources that take a neutral position on the status of Jerusalem also conflict with sources that are committed to one position or the other, for the purposes of our policy. Formerip (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Nobody disputes that nations around the world do not recognise Jerusalem as Israel' capital, that is why there is a note explaining the situation. But nobody has provided any sources saying that a country cannot determine its own capital, or that a capital status is dependent on international recognition. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no need to explore those questions unless you want to directly make a claim about that in the article. The only question is what sources state. What your angle amounts to is: prove to me that it matters what sources say, which is obviously just evasive cobblers. Formerip (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

These sources refer to Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel. I think that's bad style, but there you go. I've been careful only to include one from the UK: Globe and Mail Financial Times (paywall) Wall Street Journal Al Jazeera Der Spiegel Le Figaro Le Monde Japan Times El Pais. Formerip (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I picked one at random, the Japan Times, and boy am I glad I did. First of all it's an editorial. Second it doesn't actually say Tel Aviv is the capital, it makes the ridiculous claim that the Israeli government is in Tel Aviv. Is this the kind of high quality RS we were talking about? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, I think it's bad style. But it's not a "ridiculous claim". It's following a style guide that insists that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel. Formerip (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It is a ridiculous claim: the Knesset, the Government offices, the Israeli Supreme Court and Yad Vashem are all sit in Jerusalem and not in Tel Aviv. Insisting on claiming that the Knesset is in Tel Aviv just because someone doesn't like the fact that Jerusalem is de-facto the capital of Israel, is giving wrong information. MathKnight 13:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

the Anti semitic British did not change from 1948 =>> BBC NEWS - LONDON 2012 = the International Olympic Committee will not mention the Munich massacre in the Olympics ceremony. פארוק (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Globe and Mail - cert error. Financial Times - takes me to the main page. Al-Jazeera - I'll give you that one FWIW. The others seem to be using Tel Aviv as a metonym for Israel, but I'm not aware of any rule that says this has to be the capital. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you know of any other example of a country being referred to by a metonym that is not it's capital? Ever? Formerip (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

BTW, in fairness, you can't be expected to read every language in the world, but Der Spiegel refers to "Pardes Chanah, an immigrant settlement near the Israeli capital Tel Aviv". I also posted the wrong link for El Pais, so I'll try to find it again in my history. Formerip (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure ?.... =>>>> Capital of Israel. פארוק (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I've replaced the El Pais link. The relevant quote is: "At least one person has died and six were injured after the explosion of a car near to Tel Aviv, Israel's capital". Formerip (talk) 21:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

So basically you're suggesting we put Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I think I've been clear that I don't think Wikipedia should take sides in a political controversy and that I think referring to Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel is bad style. Formerip (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Not following you. You have several supposedly RS that say Tel Aviv is the capital. Following wikipedia policy, that should be mentioned in the article, no? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not what you asked. The sources I have provided do not support a claim in WP's voice that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel any more than sources saying it is Jerusalem support the claim that is currently in the lead. That's not to say that the different POVs shouldn't be mentioned in the article, of course. Formerip (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

What exact text would you suggest putting in the article based on the sources you provided above? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not there yet and, obviously, those sources are not sufficient on their own for a definitive wording proposal. For now, I'm just advancing the case that the current version breaches NPOV because there are many reputable sources that conflict with it. Do you think I'm doing OK so far, or do you want more sources? Formerip (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no. I was just curious as to how far you'd go with the notion that any kind of mention that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel should go in the article. I'm quite pleased to see you weren't willing to go that far. The obvious implication here is that you don't really think those sources are RS on the point. For the record, I don't think anybody in their right mind actually thinks Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel. Why this appears in certain newspapers would be something worthy of investigation (are those serious news stories or fluff? Are they written by the newspapers that carried them, or are they just publishing something someone else wrote, etc) if someone actually wanted to use them in the article. But you can't say they tell us something about Jerusalem without them telling us something about Tel Aviv, something I hope a serious encyclopedia would not allow to appear in one of its articles. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

They tell us something about what different points-of-view are held about Israel and its capital, which is the relevant thing in considering a question of NPOV. Formerip (talk) 23:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It's only relevant if you're willing to take it to its obvious conclusion, which is putting text that says that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel according to some. Do you want the article to say that? Do you think Der Spiegel actually thinks Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not its obvious conclusion at all, and it's not my intention, in particular, to take it that way. There's nothing wrong at all with the article saying that Tel Aviv is sometimes regarded as a capital city, but that's not what I am most interested in. Formerip (talk) 23:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Please look here ==>>>> the capital of Israel. פארוק (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I know that's not what you're most interested in, but that would be a necessary step (per NPOV) if you think these sources are RS for this purpose. So please suggest some text based on the sources you provided. I'm always curious to see how far serious editors who care about the credibility of wikipedia are willing to go to make a point. Considering we both know Tel Aviv is not the capital of Israel, I'd be interested in seeing how far your conscious will let you go. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Some media organisations refer to Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel. With additional sourcing, you could have Some governments, international bodies and media organisations refer to Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel. With still further sourcing, maybe some rough quantification could be added in.

I don't see how its a necessary step for anything, though. But if so, consider it stepped. Formerip (talk) 00:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's disappointing. Let's take those sources to RS/N. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Er, if you like. I'll be right behind you to point out how daft you're being. Formerip (talk) 01:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The ONUS is on you. You get one free personal attack. That was it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I've got nothing I want to prove just yet. If you want to go to RSN, or to ANI over that admittedly dreadful personal attack I just made, do it or don't. Formerip (talk) 02:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

When/if you decide you have something you want to prove, you know what to do. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

For future reference: Der Spiegl's page on Israel [19], El Pais' editorial policy on Jerusalem that is so full of factual errors they can't be considered RS on this [20] No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Guardian [21]. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The Globe and Mail is from Toronto, BTW. It's not related to the Boston Globe. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The maple leaf should have been a clue, I guess. Formerip (talk) 01:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

If there is consensus to include a statement like "Both Israel and Palestine claim Jerusalem as their capital city" somewhere, the footnote for example (both here and in the Palestinian territories article), perhaps to replace/simplify some of the existing content, there is a high quality source that supports this exact statement (->) Sean.hoyland - talk 09:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The footnote already clearly says that the Palestinians see East Jerusalem as a capital of their future state. That is all that is needed. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

...because ? Sean.hoyland - talk 09:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Because it gives the facts, that the palestinians see East Jerusalem as the capital of their future state. That is factual, and explains the situation. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It's unsourced. Anyone can delete it right now. Perhaps, I should explain why I'm doing this. The footnote both here and in the Palestinian territories article are examples of wiki-reality. Policy and the discretionary sanctions mandate verifiability. Everything, even the contents of a footnote, must be based on high quality reliable sources. Deciding what the footnote should say is one issue but it can't say things without a source. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You will need consensus to put something new in it, and probably to remove something from it too. Now the article at Positions on Jerusalem says "Jerusalem is a contentious issue in final status peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian National Authority, which claims Jerusalem as Al Quds, the capital of a future Palestinian state.". I have no problem with the footnote saying something along those lines. What i strongly oppose is any wording which suggests East Jerusalem is the capital of a state that does not exist. They claim it and see it as the capital of a future Palestinian state, but as of yet, no palestinian sovereign state exists to have a capital. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of coming up with centrally agreed footnotes for this article and the Palestinian territories article somewhere like WP:IPCOLL at some point. No rush. This is probably not the right place. It's quite noisy. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

[22] No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

That is a very interesting document. I shall be keeping that. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Glad you like it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia 'en' set jerusalem as capital of israel and the white house don't => http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGEn1TZtEmQ&feature=player_embedded Israel is not a sovereign state, United Nation consider East Jerusalem as occupied, logicaly not in israel. Israel borders are not definitive, a sovereign state have definitive borders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.128.204.99 (talk) 12:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Israel is a sovereign state. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

A self-proclaimed sovereign state with neither borders nor capital? That's a joke! MX44 (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

simple question, if you so hate Israel, why won't you ask to delete the article and SALAM for all? I mean, the UN decided that Zionism is racism and then decided it isn't... conclusions: -The UN is not a reliable source OR -True is False, and False is true... 00:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

the true: the UN hate Israel  !!! this is the true. becouse of the there are no embassies in Jerusalem. פארוק (talk) 06:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is a recent source relating to Romney's recent trip: "He courted further controversy by proclaiming Jerusalem to be “the capital of Israel”, a status not recognised by the United States or any foreign power ". --Dailycare (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is a recent article from the Columbia Journalism Review, which, presumably after fact checking due to complaints, issued the following "Correction: The sentence originally referred to Tel Aviv as Israel’s capital city, which is incorrect; Jerusalem is the capital". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not in dispute that there exist sources that say the capital is Jerusalem (especialy Israeli and American sources). It's also not in dispute that there exist sources that say the claim Jerusalem is the capital is controversial and not recognized. See also this source, according to which it's not wrong (per UK press rules) to say Tel Aviv is the capital. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Apprently the Guardian changed its mind about the whole issue [23]. Seems the "UK press rules" are not actually based on any facts, but we knew that already. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that source of yours is a good starting point for us (apparently Israel's embassy has been busy faxing letters to the Guardian). That source states in fact the standard international position, namely that Israel has proclaimed Jerusalem to be the capital, but this isn't internationally recognized. The ruling however hasn't apparently been changed, so it's still not wrong per UK press rules to say Tel Aviv is the capital. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

"Apparently Israel's embassy has been busy faxing letters"? How is that "apparent"? Also how is it "apparent" that the ruling hasn't been changed? The word "apparent" doesn't mean "what Dailycare would like to think" you know. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

If you have a source stating that the ruling has been changed, it would naturally be of interest. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 15:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why do you think we should care what the UK PCC says? It's not a judicial body. It's an self-regulatory opt-in body created by the UK press to monitor itself. Anyway, "apparently" they have withdrawn their ruling [24]. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have reasons to not care about rulings of the PCC? 99% of the sources we use aren't judicial bodies. FWIW, I'm not sold on the JPost's comment that the ruling has been withdrawn. Curiously the ruling isn't visible on the PCC site. By the way, which amendment to the article are we discussing in this thread? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

You're not sold? We must alert the JPost immediately so they can note that on their online version of the article! It is indeed curious that the ruling is not visible on the PCC site. I wonder why that may be? Could it possibly be because they withdrew it? Nah, we're not sold on that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Please help the Israelis understand where their real capital is, per the BBC et al. They just don't get it. Searching for Israel's capital. Opportunidaddy (talk) 00:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Did the anti semitic BBC channel delet Jerusalem as thc capital of israel for the olimpic games and put a picture of a soldier to write that is a stste called: Palestine ?. פארוק (talk) 07:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is the original Guardian retraction. Note that the Guardian is not saying that Jerusalem is the capital, only that Tel Aviv is not the capital - a nicety that the Jerusalem Post has chosen to ignore. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Presenting a POV as fact, part one - can anyone spot what's wrong with the following sentence: "Africa is inhabited by Africans. The Africans are an inferior race, although this view is almost universally rejected." --Dailycare (talk) 11:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Careful. -- Rrburke (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)